County officials have rejected a $24,500 claim that accused a deputy district attorney of malpractice and raised ethical questions about a county supervisor's outside activities.

The claim followed a yearlong court battle over the amount of restitution owed to Lori Galvin, a domestic violence victim. Her ex-boyfriend was convicted of misdemeanor battery and vandalism in June 2011.

In February last year, a deputy district attorney and public defender agreed that Galvin should receive $1,590 in restitution under state law, and Superior Court Judge Scott Steiner approved the order.

Seeking thousands more, Galvin hired a private attorney and successfully convinced prosecutors to appeal. Steiner ultimately recused himself from the case and restitution was boosted by another judge to more than $25,000.

That ruling marked a big victory for Galvin, but her search for redress wasn't over. In May this year, she filed the $24,500 claim against the county seeking to recoup her private attorney's fees.

And to complicate matters, her attorney was county Supervisor Todd Spitzer. Prior to taking office this year, Spitzer's law practice included advocating for crime victims like Galvin.

The claim accused a deputy district attorney, Bradley Schoenleben, of malpractice by agreeing to the original amount of restitution and by excluding Galvin from the February hearing. Under state law, victims have a right to be heard upon request at court proceedings.

In a court filing, the District Attorney's Office acknowledged errors but did not label them malpractice. The document was authored by a second deputy district attorney who appealed the amount of restitution.

"The victim was not adequately consulted or heard," prosecutor Holly Woesner wrote. "The victim was deprived of her right to be present and to address the court in the restitution hearing and was aggrieved by Judge Steiner's order."

Woesner continued: "The prosecutor had no authority to agree to less than full victim restitution and prosecutorial misrepresentation or mistake does not justify enforcing an unauthorized sentence. ... This omission was constitutionally unlawful and could not be waived by the district attorney."

In response to requests for comment, the District Attorney's Office provided a statement highlighting the legal protections for prosecutors. The office "enjoys broad and absolute immunities from civil claims when prosecutors act in their official capacities," Chief of Staff Susan Kang Schroeder wrote in an email.

Steiner declined to comment on the case through a court spokeswoman. Judges don't normally discuss pending cases, and the Public Defender's Office plans to appeal the revised amount of restitution.

Aside from the malpractice allegations, the claim raised separate questions about Spitzer's involvement. While he began representing Galvin as a private attorney, he continued working for her after taking public office.

In April this year, while a sitting supervisor, Spitzer helped Galvin research and write the claim filed against the county, and billed her $3,400 for that work. The claim document calls Spitzer "her attorney" and lists his law office for her contact information.

Spitzer has repeatedly insisted that he is not actually representing Galvin in her claim, acknowledging that such activity would present a conflict of interest. Public officials aren't supposed to influence decisions where the outcome would benefit them personally.

However, Spitzer has publicly commented on her claim's merits. In a letter published by the Register last week, Spitzer wrote: "The deputy district attorney works for the county of Orange and the county is liable for that person's malpractice. Through either poor training or laziness to do basic legal research showing victim Galvin's right to restitution, victim Galvin was deprived of her basic legal rights."

Spitzer's activities don't appear to violate any conflict of interest laws, but other public employees wouldn't be in the same boat. State legislators are prohibited from being paid to counsel actions against the state, and county policies steer non-elected employees away from similar outside work.

The activity didn't sit well with Shawn Nelson, chairman of the Board of Supervisors, or Larry Yellin, president of the Orange County Attorneys Association, which represents deputy district attorneys.

"It's offensive," Yellin said. "I know it's a salary job and it's not legally unethical, but boy is it distasteful."

The county Office of Risk Management effectively rejected Galvin's claim this month by not taking action within a required 45 days. Since the requested amount fell under $50,000, the claim was not reviewed by the Board of Supervisors.

It's unknown whether Galvin will appeal the decision in court. Messages attempting to seek comment were not returned by deadline. Spitzer said he was not advising her on the issue.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.